Exxon and the Valdez Crisis

On March 24, 1989, the Exxon Valdez oil tanker was improperly navigated through the Prince William Sound region of Alaska. The tanker hit a reef, which punctured its hull and resulted in an oil spill estimated at 240,000 barrels. The oil contaminated the water and shoreline, causing significant environmental damage. The spill instantly created an environmental crisis for Exxon that required both immediate and long-term crisis response procedures. The Valdez spill has become a standard example of how devastating and enduring a crisis can be. It also demonstrates the importance of crisis management, planning, immediate response, and attention to the multiple publics and stakeholders involved in the crisis.

The oil spill crisis escalated in severity immediately after the grounding of the Valdez. Exxon initiated cleanup efforts, but they were unprepared to cope with a spill of this magnitude. The containment equipment that was immediately available was unable to maintain the spill in an area that would allow quick extraction of the oil from the water. The Alyeska Service Company stepped in to assist with machinery to help contain the spill. Alyeska was the operator of the trans-Alaska oil pipeline. Unfortunately, eight years earlier, Alyeska had disbanded a 20-member emergency team assigned to the Prince William Sound area. Exxon and Alyeska had only moderate initial success in their efforts as the oil coated marine life and began to reach the shoreline. The initial perception was that neither Exxon nor any local entity was adequately prepared for this potential crisis. Exxon and local government agencies soon began to blame each other for apparent lack of resources in the area and delays in cleanup efforts. Exxon said it had to follow slow state bureaucratic procedures before being allowed to implement important operations.

General public reaction was nearly instantaneous. At this public relations crisis, Exxon had a wide range of audiences and stakeholders to consider in their responses. Media outlets were immediately drawn to the story, and their coverage presented a horrific view of the accident. Video footage of the spill showed numerous dead birds, fish, and other marine life. Major news magazines all carried the story, often with sad or graphic photographs of affected animals and the shoreline. Environmental groups were quick to blame Exxon for the tragedy, and their predictions for the future of the Prince William Sound environment were gloomy. Some predicted that the effect of the spill would be evident in the sound for many years. Environmental groups suggested that many animals were in danger, including otters, whales, porpoises, and sea birds. Exxon would eventually need to respond to and compensate members of the fishing industry whose businesses were harmed because of the loss of productive waters and damage to their equipment. Initial claims against Exxon ranged from a few hundred dollars to millions of dollars. Alaska governor Steve Cowper headed the group of local and state officials who challenged the efficiency of the cleanup effort and Exxon's role in the response. Individual and various interest groups across the country reacted harshly as well. Protests and boycotts of Exxon were seen throughout the nation, and the media captured footage of people cutting up their Exxon gas cards and carrying protest signs. A momentary jump in gas prices also hit the general public, and the Valdez spill was thought to be the cause of the increase.

...